Affirmative Action Bears Great Moral Costs

Published: June 9, 1990

The first is the inappropriateness of a philosopher discussing the scientific issue of intelligence testing. Surely, however, ideas must be evaluated on their merits, not their origin. In particular, if I have overstepped my competence, it should be easy to show that no average race difference in intelligence exists by showing that there is no systematic performance gap on standard tests of mental ability or that these tests fail to predict a wide range of variables (including ordinary judgments of intelligence and giftedness) or that these tests predict black performance less accurately than white performance. So far, the necessary documentation has not been forthcoming.

Credentials do count, however, so let me highlight the points at which philosophy intersects the issue of race and intelligence. The main argument for affirmative action appeals to compensatory justice, a topic central to ethical inquiry since at least Aristotle. Identifying the tacit factual premise of the affirmative-action argument - that black underachievement is caused by white oppression, rather than some endogenous factor - is precisely the sort of things philosophers do.

In addition, a central question of the philosophy of science - one of my areas of expertise - concerns the criteria by which scientists accord existence to unobservable, theoretical entities, such as quarks or magnetic fields. The reality of an all-purpose problem-solving ability never more than partly manifest in behavior is such a question; its discussion by a philosopher would raise no eyebrows were his conclusions more fashionable.

The second criticism is a purported inconsistency between my opposition to affirmative action and my endorsement of race-conscious responses to crime. Forget that the endorsement of affirmative action and a disregard of race in considering crime is at least as problematic; common sense recognizes different criteria for apportionment of compensation and avoidance of attack.

Since compensation must be for some wrong that occurred, and since the cost of compensation to the tort-feasor who has done that wrong is normally high, compensible wrongs must be shown to have occurred with a high degree of probability. By contrast, the harm done by an assault is so great, and the burden imposed by avoiding an innocent perceived threat is so minute, that a much lower threshold of probability warrants evasive action. The right not to be attacked is generally regarded as overriding.

The use of suspect profiles and search for probable cause is universally tolerated. Driver's licenses are withheld before a certain age because testing every adolescent for suitable maturity is impractical. No one doubts that injustices are done by such group classifications, but the injustices prevented outweigh them.

The idea that preventing great injustice can warrant small injustice allows the theoretical possibility of justifying affirmative action if the moral cost was correspondingly small and the moral benefits were great. The point of my attack, however, is that the moral costs are great and the moral benefits nonexistent, since there are no wrongs to compensate.

I recognize that even discussing these issues may cause distress and suspicion on the part of blacks. On the other hand, many academics publicly endorse affirmative action and seem not to worry about the distress and suspicion that this may cause to their white students. So perhaps calls for my job should end, and discussion should continue.